Title
City Government of Tagbilaran vs. HontaNo.s, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1169
Decision Date
Jan 29, 2002
Judge Hontanosas acquitted a tax evader, defied RTC's inhibition advice, gambled in casinos/cockpits, fined P12K; Atty. De la Serna's unauthorized complaint withdrawn, faced misconduct inquiry.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1169)

Charges Against the Respondent

The complaint lodged on May 29, 1997, posited two principal allegations against Judge Hontanosas: (1) open defiance of a superior court's lawful order mandating his inhibition from hearing a particular case, and (2) habitual gambling in casinos and cockpits. The complainant detailed an incident where Judge Hontanosas was requested to inhibit himself from cases involving Barbara Ong, the wife of a prominent businessman, but instead, he refused to comply and proceeded with the trial, culminating in an acquittal for the accused.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct

The complainant further asserted that Judge Hontanosas was frequently observed engaging in gambling activities in Cebu and at cockfights in Bohol, noting that local lawyers believed they could secure favorable decisions from him for bribes as low as P500 to P5,000. This behavior allegedly tarnished public trust in the judiciary.

Respondent’s Defense

In response, Judge Hontanosas argued that the Regional Trial Court's order for his inhibition was invalid due to lack of notice and the failure to involve all parties. He claimed that the order merely advised him to inhibit without establishing a mandatory requirement. In addressing the gambling allegations, he admitted to accompanying his wife to a casino but denied participating in gambling activities.

Procedural Developments

The case management unfolded with the Court Administrator requiring the respondent to provide an answer, which was timely delivered. The matter was then docketed as a regular administrative case, and the complainants expressed a desire to withdraw their case, perceiving futility in proceeding further.

Court Administrator’s Findings

In a report, the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the first charge against Judge Hontanosas for lack of merit, clarifying that the inhibition order did not impose a binding obligation on the respondent. However, he found sufficient grounds for the second charge regarding gambling, as it conflicted with the established judicial conduct guidelines and ethical canons.

Court Ruling on Charges

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concurred with the findings of habitual gambling by Judge Hontanosas, affirming that even if he did not directly gamble, his presence in the casinos violated established directives against judges frequenting such venues. The Court highlighted the detrimental effect of such actions on public perception and trust in the judiciary.

Sanction Imposed

The Court resolved to dismiss the first charge regarding the defiance of the superior court's order but penalized Judge Hontanosas with a fine of P12,000 for gambling-related violations. He was sternly warned that any recurrence of similar conduct would attract more

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.